Friday's Rugby News - Green and Gold Rugby
ACT Brumbies

Friday’s Rugby News

Friday’s Rugby News

Friday’s Rugby News sees fake news, Kuridrani rested, a World Cup bid, and a shakeup for the Bulls

 

Thor’s Fake News 

Taniela Tupou

Australia’s rugby news was awash with news of a player revolt lead by Taniela Tupou’s defence of Israel Folau only it didn’t actually happen. It was sensationalism at its worst.

Tupou actually came out in defence of his skipper Samu Kerevi whose easter message was misinterpreted by a few special individuals as some kind of defence of Folaus anti-gay stance.

Here is Samu’s original post. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3:16‬
Thank You Jesus for dying on the cross for me. I love you Jesus.

Nothing wrong with that right? Even us heathens have nothing to say about a religious guy posting that over Easter but still, we live in a world where someone, with nothing better to do, will complain about just about anything.

Kerevi apologised if he’d caused any offence. I’ve got to say he’s a bigger man than me. I wouldn’t have. He’d done nothing wrong.

Anyway.

Tupou spoke up, here’s what he said.

“Seriously,” “Might as well sack me and all the other Pacific Islands rugby players around the world because we have the same Christian beliefs.

“I will never apologise for my faith and what I believe in, religion had [sic] got nothing to do with rugby anyways #TYJ.”

There is nothing in this story and blowing it out of proportion helps no one except the guy trying to sell papers. let it go.

Ikitau Debuts Kuridrani Rests

Len Ikitau setting up another Vikings try.

For the first time this year, Tevita Kuridrani isn’t starting for the Brumbies. My source from the capital tells me Tevita has a slight medial ligament strain and maybe the Brumbies are taking this opportunity to rest him for the big show.

The good news out of all this is BBC product Len Ikitau’s chance to shine in the big show. It’s always good to see a Queensland boy do good.

Ikitau is one of three changes from the side that took to the field in Buenos Aires last week. Scrumhalf Joe Powell and midfielder Irae Simone return to the starting XV, with Tom Wright and local product Ryan Lonergan named amongst the replacements.

James Slipper gets the nod to start at prop along with Allan Alaalatoa and hooker Folau Fainga’a in the front row, along with Rory Arnold and Sam Carter continuing as the lock pairing following some excellent set-piece work against the Jaguares in Argentina.

The same starting loose forward trio continues from their strong performances on tour, including a first start at GIO Stadium for Jahrome Brown, the flanker having emerged as a genuine threat since his introduction to Super Rugby, alongside Tom Cusack and Pete Samu to complete the forward pack.

Powell reforms his halfback partnership with Christian Lealiifano, who captains the team and needs one-point to bring up 900 Super Rugby career points, with Simone and Ikitau combining  in midfield.

Out wide, speedsters Toni Pulu and Henry Speight will link with fullback Tom Banks.

TEAM 

  1. James Slipper
  2. Folau Fainga’a
  3. Allan Alaalatoa
  4. Rory Arnold
  5. Sam Carter
  6. Tom Cusack
  7. Jahrome Brown
  8. Pete Samu
  9. Joe Powell
  10. Christian Lealiifano (c)
  11. Toni Pulu
  12. Irae Simone
  13. Len Ikitau
  14. Henry Speight
  15. Tom Banks

REPLACEMENTS

  1. Connal McInerney
  2. Scott Sio
  3. Leslie Leuluaialii-Makin
  4. Darcy Swain
  5. Murray Douglas
  6. Ryan Lonergan
  7. Tom Wright
  8. Andy Muirhead

2027 World Cup Bid

Rugby Australia today announced they are scoping a bid for the 2027 world cup hosting rights. The Aussie government is helping out with a bit of cash before the official bid process starts in mid 2020 finishing up around November 2021.

I’m usually not a fan of these things. They seem to be a mechanism for taking public money and putting it in private hands. But I’m okay with this… So far. World Rugby isn’t the IOC. And the Rugby World Cup is the third biggest sporting event in the world.

The 2015 RWC in England generated economic output of around £2.3B, contributed an additional £1.1B to GDP, created 34,000 jobs and attracted 400,000 tourists.

The tournament had an estimated global TV audience of over 4 billion viewers.

Modelling for the 2019 Rugby World Cup, which will take place in Japan between 20 September 2019 and 2 November 2019 estimates that the 44-day Rugby World Cup 2019 will generate a record total output of around £2.97 billion for the Japanese economy, attract up to 400,000 international visitors and support up to 25,000 jobs.

Rugby Australia Chief Executive Raelene Castle said: “Rugby Australia is most grateful and extremely pleased to receive this support from the Australian Government for our foundation planning phase.  As a country, we are fortunate to have strong support from governments that recognise the importance of hosting major events and what they can deliver, which was recognised in the Sports 2030 Plan and Sports Diplomacy 2030 Plan.

“We were fortunate to receive strong support last year from the Australian Government for our Women’s Rugby World Cup Bid and we welcome the support provided today which will enable us to undertake important scoping work this year, in partnership with Australian Government agencies, around the viability and strategy for a bid to host the 2027 Rugby World Cup.

“The Rugby World Cup is one of the greatest sporting events in the world and is known for bringing fans from many different countries for a celebration of everything that is great about Rugby.

“Australia is a great sporting nation and hosting RWC 2027 would be another proud chapter in Australia’s rich sporting history of delivering global major events. We look forward to working with Australian Government agencies over the coming months before the official process kicks off next year.”

 

 Kriel Out For Waratahs Clash.

The Bulls have lost two key backs for their clash against the under pressure Waratahs. Jesse Kriel and Jade Stighling are both missing after the Bulls 23-22 defeat to the Stormers last weekend.

Wings Cornal Hendricks and Rosko Specman come into a radically rejigged backline. The Bulls, unfortunately for the Tahs, are unchanged. For the Waratahs the big news is the return of test prop Tom Robertson after what seems years in team rehab.

Meanwhile, Ned Hanigan will start in the unfamilar No 8 jersey for the understrength Waratahs.

NSW are without the suspended Jed Holloway and injured quartet Jack Dempsey, Michael Wells, Tolu Latu and Rory O’Connor.

BULLS (15-1): Warrick Gelant, Cornal Hendricks, Johnny Kotze, Burger Odendaal, Rosko Specman, Handre Pollard (c), Ivan van Zyl, Duane Vermeulen, Hanro Liebenberg, Marco van Staden, RG Snyman, Jannes Kirsten, Trevor Nyakane, Jaco Visagie, Lizo Gqoboka

Reserves: Johan Grobbelaar, Simphiwe Matanzima, Wiehan Herbst, Thembelani Bholi, Paul Schoeman, Andre Warner, Manie Libbok, Dylan Sage

WARATAHS (15-1): Kurtley Beale, Cam Clark, Adam Ashley-Cooper, Karmichael Hunt, Curtis Rona, Bernard Foley, Nick Phipps, Ned Hanigan, Michael Hooper (c), Lachlan Swinton, Rob Simmons, Tom Staniforth, Sekope Kepu, Damien Fitzpatrick, Harry Johnson-Holmes

Reserves: Andrew Tuala, Tom Robertson, Chris Talakai, Hugh Sinclair, Will Miller, Jake Gordon, Lalakai Foketi, Alex Newsome

 

  • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

    If this Folau incident shows nothing else, it is that rugby in Australia has a far higher percentage of conservative Christians than the rest of our secular society.

    Need to find a way to reconcile these two parties, so that both groups feel comfortable and happy. The heckling is Samu by people online was pathetic. But guys like Folau need to accept that publishing views out of keeping with mainstream Australian society will not go down well. And when you’re a public figure whose salary is attached to how marketable you are, that really matters.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if social media didn’t exist, so none of this stuff could happen in the first place.

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      Mate decent reporting and people looking at the truth rather than reacting from the false sensationalist reporting would be a good start

    • Hoss

      Cue scorn, outrage and damnation in 3,2,1……

      • Keith Butler

        You’re dead right Hoss. It takes just one and we head for the shit storm we had on Wednesday. To you keyboard warriors, take your opinions and fuck off elsewhere. This is a site to discuss rugby.

    • joy

      A reality check. 72% of Australians believe in a God according to the last census. That leaves 28% who don’t. I suspect a majority of these are agnostic (don’t know, don’t care) which challenges perceptions of what is exactly mainstream. This aside a solution needs to be found. Agreeing to disagree would be a good start and may be the only solution.

      • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

        You posted this meaningless statistic the other day, just as contextless, just as pointless.

        It’s true that most Australians are religious. But religion is a broad church, Christianity is a broad church. To imply that all 72% of Australians agree with Folau as they’re religious, or even that all Christians do, is just, quite frankly, verging on delusion.

        Most religious people in Australia are not as conservative in their religious views as most, but certainly not all, of the PI community appears to be.

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        Who cares? I mean even Tupou said it’s got nothing to do with rugby.

        • GO THE Q REDS

          Does if it offends someone….

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          I think there are some people who look for reasons to be offended and you know what? Good luck to them. So they’re offended! Who cares? They aren’t bleeding, they aren’t in pain, they aren’t losing money; they’re just offended by someone thinking differently to them. Maybe they should go to Bunnings and either get a cup of cement to harden up, or buy some timber to build a bridge and get over it

      • John Tynan

        That probably includes The Flying Spaghetti Monster and whatever Jedi’s look up to. then take “practicing” and “non-practicing”, and as always, stats aren’t the answer, but do help with the questions.

        • Custard Taht

          I used to believe in Puff the magic dragon, then I realised dragons aren’t real, and the book was full of lies.

          Now though, after a personality assessment and giving 10% of my salary, I am a born again believer in the One eyed, one horned, flying people people eater.

        • Who?

          You mean GoT isn’t real?!

        • Custard Taht

          The dragons aren’t, but everything else I believe is real. I know white walkers are, I see them all the time in the area I live.

        • Brumby Runner

          Purple. Is he an AFL devotee? Short shorts?

        • Custard Taht

          Definitely loves the short shorts, riding around in yellow submarines whilst wearing an itsy bitsy teeny weeny yellow polker dot bikini.
          He loves the AFL, it was his idea to reward mediocrity by awarding 1 point for trying.

        • Brumby Runner

          Gotta love his formal attire. Tan shoes with pink shoe laces, a polka dot vest and a big Panama with a purple hat band. Very much a LGBTQI supporter as well with all the purple on show.

    • joy

      72% of Australians believe in a God according to the last census. That leaves 28% who don’t. I suspect most of these are agnostic so who are the “mainstream”?

      I do agree that a solution needs to be found. Agreeing to disagree would be a good start and may be the only solution.

      • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

        The reality is that although Australia is a majority Christian country, most Christians don’t hold the same views as Folau. Pocock is a pertinent example. Even with the SSM referndum, the voters’ position was very different to that of most churches.

        The mainstream is whatever the majority thinks. Playing identity politics as you’re trying to do is a tired thing. People hold their own views, they’re not determined solely by their group identity.

        • Andrew Luscombe

          Most churches don’t tell people how to vote. Sins aren’t laws. There’s many people who think drinking or fornicating are sins, but they wouldn’t vote to make them illegal. Many people voted to change the law, who also thought that same sex marriage is sinful. There’s no contradiction in that.

        • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

          I totally agree with all of that, mate. And I’m on the record saying I think Folau is probably honestly trying to save the souls of gay people – I think his heart is in the right place, even if I disagree with him.

          But the point I was making is that most churches, priests, etc opposed same sex marriage, but the vote showed the Australian population was overwhelmingly in favour of legalising SSM, despite the majority of Australians being Christians. There is a disconnect between the official opinion of churches (generally more conservative) and that of most Christians (generally more progressive).

          P.S. some people who are ignorant or mistruthful pretend the vote wasn’t overwhelmingly in favour by citing the 20% of people who didn’t vote. But these people ignore the fact that people who feel more strongly about an issue either way (either for or against) are more likely to vote than those who feel less strongly. Given the vote was so overwhelmingly in favour, the mean voter was much more likely to vote yes. So it can probably be safely assumed that most people who didn’t vote would have been more likely to vote yes than no.

    • Dud Roodt

      How about this as a start;

      – it’s OK to be Christian
      – it’s OK to be atheist
      – it’s OK to be straight
      – it’s OK to be gay
      – it’s OK to be black
      – it’s OK to be white

      – it’s NOT OK to denigrate any of the above groups in a public setting

      • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

        I think that is a good start!

        But with the small caveat that I don’t have a problem with things like Life of Brian. I think that the
        ability to be humorous and poke fun at things is important.

        • Dud Roodt

          Oh of course – nothing is above ridicule (in my opinion), but in this context I think the rules of engagement above are a good start

      • John Tynan

        There’s a song in there somewhere Dud.

      • Nutta

        Right, as a drinking fornicator I have been excluded by the above and am now outraged.

      • idiot savant

        Heresy!

  • Kiwi rugby lover

    Thanks Sully, and double thanks for finally getting some decent reporting on Kerevi and Tupou and their comments. I’m not sure what is worse here; the pathetic sensationalist reporting or the over reaction from fans who took the reporting at face value and then commented on it as if it was true. I think the reporting and the comments have more potential to create a rift with the Polynesian community in rugby than even the stupid comments made by Folau.

    I’m really looking forward to the Brumbies vs Blues this weekend as both have chances to consolidate where they are and both risk falling by the way if they don’t get points. Mind you the Highlanders vs Chiefs should also be a good game.

    Good luck with the RWC bid. That would be fantastic news if it came off. Weather alone should get it through.

    • Custard Taht

      I wouldn’t be surprised if all 4 Oz teams lost this weekend. The Reds are the more likely to get a win.

      • Hoss

        Blasphemer. I have a small multi on 4 Oz wins, although paying $180 / $1 might suggest you are onto something.

    • HK Red

      I must have been reading the wrong news, or the less tabloid news. All the reports I read on Kerevi and Tupou quoted them accurately, as per above. There might have been a slightly overblown headline or two “Dramatic Turn For The Worse” or “Bombshell”, however they were just headlines. When you actually read the story it was clear that RA might need to be on their toes with how they played this, but that was it. I know the press in general these days can be utter dicks, but I don’t think they blew this one up that much.
      Again, maybe I’m reading the wrong news.

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        Mate SMH, The Roar and some NZ sites had it all about Folau and the split it was causing within rugby. If you read it closely the article didn’t usually reflect the headline but a lot of people both on Roar and here seemed to read the headline and react to that rather than the actual article

        • Bernie Chan

          SMH, theOz and fuxsports the biggest offenders (‘sinners’…?). Some of the experts on theroar not much better…
          Would be nice if some rugby journalists/pundits discovered a way to be impartial and not just be a RA/NSWRU/QRU PR mouthpiece…

        • HK Red

          Ahhhhh there’s the answer. Don’t read Roar, don’t read SMH (since paywall), don’t read NZ sites unless a NZ mate sends me a link. Even GAGR is tough these days since my work firewalled Disqus, so I can’t see or write comments, unless I bother to slowly tap them out on my phone. Bloody annoying!
          Also, yeah it seems more about reacting to headlines than actually reading the facts.
          Anyway, so it looks like I’m perusing the wrong, or the right, media.

  • joy

    More fake news:

    Former Wallabies great Willie Ofahengaue — the first Tongan to represent Australia — has ­defended Israel Folau, saying the star player has every right to exercise his freedom of speech and ­religion.

    Today’s Australian.

    • Custard Taht

      Of all the news, fake news is by far and away my favourite. The world would be a lesser place without it.

      • Singapore Sling

        Fake news is one thing but I’m sick of the fake rugby Cheika has contrived over the last four years.

        • Custard Taht

          Have faith, it is a cunning plan to lull the rest of the teams into writing us off….do enough to make it through the pool stages, then smash through the finals.

        • AllyOz

          It’s working

    • Didn’t he freely sign away his right to free speech by freely signing the code of conduct for a shitload of money.

      • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

        Agree with the sentiment, but there is a small correction:

        ‘Didn’t he freely sign a contract that maintained speech his free speech, but which also said that if utilised that speech in certain ways, he was risking being made unemployed.’

    • formerflanker

      I thought “fake news” was a new way of saying the media is lying, twisting the truth, or omitting facts.
      Are you saying WiileO didn’t defend Izzy, and that The Oz is wrong in its reporting?

      • joy

        See KRL post below. It’s all fake news.isn’t it?

  • John Tynan

    YESSSS!!!! Thank you Sully. I’ve been thinking the same thing as your first article.

  • Keith Butler

    Dead right DB.

  • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

    Surely Swinton would be a more natural 8 than Hanigan?

    The poor guy is just set up for failure again and again, Gibson needs to leave him as lock or as 6 if absolutely required.

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      Mate with the way the rest of the forwards got monstered by the Sharks I think you’re going to see Hanigan spend all day going backwards. A good lineout jumper and he is quite fast but dominant in the collision he ain’t

      • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

        Yeah, but Gibson hasn’t recruited a pack capable of winning the collisions.

        They’re all forwards that are better at the loose stuff. Even Dempsey, for all the hyperbole surrounding him, is far superior at running in the wider channels than he is at making dominant tackles or running in traffic.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Yep and they paid for that last week and are likely to pay for it again this week

        • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

          Yeah, if Pocock is back by then, I will feel comfortable when they play the Brumbies in Sydney.

        • Miss Rugby

          But this time at least they have learnt the importance of moving the big Saffa pack around ….. :)

        • Custard Taht

          And Foley certainly has the kicking game to pulll off such a game plan…..

        • Who?

          Is gonna get UGLY… :-(

      • Keith Butler

        Any prediction on the Crusaders game KRL? Could be an ‘interesting’ contest up front. More than likely another win for the Crusaders. Love them or hate them they are a great side.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          I’m picking Crusaders by 19, however I caution that I am 9 out of 11 in our picking competition so it may not be worth much

  • Custard Taht

    This weekends games are going to be interesting, especially for the Aus conference.

    The Rebels really need a win, and Wessels needs to show he has more cards up his sleeve than he has. I don’t think they will get it done.

    Their only saving grace is that the Tahs and Brumbies will probably lose to, but the Tahs could just easily pull something out of their arse.

    • Keith Butler

      Not against the Canes, even if we bring our complete A game for 80 mins, fewer pens and certainly no cards. A losing bonus point would be a great result. My glass is definitely half empty on this one.

      • Custard Taht

        Yep agree, a bonus point loss would be almost as good as a win.

  • Hoss

    Well good morning to the god-fearing, heathen, agnostic & atheists joining us today.

    Today I don’t wish to argue the merits for and against recent events, but simply discuss an investment opportunity that has presented itself.

    In this maelstrom there is opportunity and as such I have started a crowd-funding page on the following link: http://www.crowdfundpark.com.au

    Ladies & gents – I present to you, my vision for:

    IZZNEYLAND

    An enchanted place of worship, fun & merriment for the whole family.

    Whilst some ideas are not fully bedded down my first draft looks a little like this:

    • The Bledisloe Baptism of Fire – where our founder will personally baptise you in the centre water feature of Ol Bethlehem Square and then regale you with stories of 27 years losses in a row to the darkness.
    • Lepers Lane – don the gloves pick an inflicted – miracles await
    • Adulterer Alley – covet thy neighbour’s wife, twice on Sundays, but beware as the fallen angel lurks in the shadows.
    • Water into wine gift shop – choose from a wide range of gifts, a replica Holy Grail, Crucifix key ring and try our world famous Dante’s Donuts
    • Sodom’s side cars – they bang, they crash, they beep, beware though , get there early as the cue is a bugger
    • Try our World Famous Homosexual Hot Dog ‘s – place an order and sit back while we cook ‘em for an eternity – the way our flock likes them done.
    • Take a break and take in a show – ‘Fornicators Folly’ plays twice daily. They’ll bump, they’ll grind, they’ll burn, you’ll laugh.
    • Lucifers Luck – try a sin – see if you dare, but don’t worry too much as…….
    • Confession Island awaits – lay you sins bare and be born again in the light of the seven – lighten you soul and start all over again. Choose our express ’12 sins or less’ lane and get back to sinning quickly. More than 12 sins ? No worries – speak to our representatives on hand from the Catholic Church and maybe consider a career in the ministry, perhaps even start as a Cardinal.
    • The Office of Vanishing Vapours – agree, shake hands and sign documents and watch them all disappear into the ether in just minutes – our founders favourite attraction
    • Crucifixion carousel – tired, come and hang around here for a while and let the kiddies play
    • Resurrection Roller Coaster – hang on tight, it starts off rough, but ends well and there’s chocolates !

    A day of thrills, spills adventure and wrath all for the great value price of $265 for a family of 4

    Happy to send a prospectus to any interested investors and take you through a formal presentation at a time of your choice.

    PS – I know I am going to hell and besides, all my friends are there – it’s the quality and placement of my seating I am trying to ensure.

    • Keith Butler

      Worth the wait mate. Just want a few sinners to assemble for the Rebs v Tahs on 31 May to go over your prospectus whilst imbibing the evil that is alcohol – the Devils drink.

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        That could be a great game to attend. I’d seriously look at that

      • Hoss

        Get it sorted sunshine.

        • Keith Butler

          Gold tickets middle upper stand $50. Any takers?

    • disqus_NMX

      Izzneyland – bah ha ha, I haven’t laughed so much in so long. Epic Hoss, your funniest piece ever!

    • IIPA

      GAGR really needs a Like button. Tip of the hat.

    • Gipetto

      If none of those options appeal. RA could host a test in Sydney to coincide with the 2020 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras [ that name does not seem sufficiently inclusive?]. The Wallabies could play the Greeks; LGBTQ quotas would be required.

    • idiot savant

      Your mind is a scary place….

      • Hoss

        At last, something we can all agree on.

    • Greg

      @Hoss, I think that you are looking good for excellent seating.

      • Hoss

        My grand father always said – ‘if your going to do something, do it well’.

    • @@HossRugby:disqus – IMHO, Izzy is creating a boo-hoo hard luck until Jesus saved me story and, along with the big payout he has planned from RA, is going to start his own church so he can make some serious coin. It all feels set-up. FWIW, I thought Thor and Samu should be applauded for getting their messages out without running anyone down or any hint of superiority.

      • Who?

        Folau doesn’t need to start his own church – his father is his pastor. So, effectively, he’s already close with the leadership of his church.
        And running a church doesn’t guarantee money. Most of the Hillsong guys would be living off song royalties, not tithe money. I know a few pastors, the only ones with any cash have businesses they work full time whilst being part time pastors.

    • Keith Butler

      No stoking the furnaces for you mate. You’ll have the best seat in the house. Toes nice and toasty warm.

    • Custard Taht

      Is there an Izzneyland Local?

      • Hoss

        Looking for land in Western Sydney – seems to be a good target market.

        • Brisneyland Local

          Nah, too many mungo ball supporters! ;-)

        • Greg

          @hoss No, he meant a pub nearby!

    • Who?

      All we really want in this Issney Adventure is an Endgame….. Which I’m sure will also see a heap of money being splashed out, is already seeing many side battles, and quite possibly will see both sides lose chief protagonists, permanently removed from the fight.

      • Hoss

        As a rugby fan it shits me to tears, as a part-time comedian, its the gift that keeps on giving.

        How did you do that redaction thingy on your post ?

        • Who?

          For Spoilers, type the following, but with ‘spoiler’ spelt correctly. ;-)
          .
          There is an issue in terms of power balance here, though. In terms of the comedy. Things like Life of Brian were able to happen because that was the dawn of an age where old power structures weren’t as strong, but they were still the establishment. It was satire about a dominant force. 150 years earlier, it doesn’t happen, because the church is too powerful (and powerful bodies don’t tend to have senses of humour). Today, it still happens, but people don’t care (because the church, generally speaking, is considered as being irrelevant in daily life. The vast majority don’t believe the Bible).
          .
          That state of being the establishment is no longer true of Christianity – and nowhere near as much as it ever was in the UK (where the Queen is still the head of the Church of England). Here, we’re talking about making fun of a brown man’s minority religion. Christianity is a minority religion today – the claimed membership of churches less than 15% of the population, and under 10% – in many regions, under 5% – of the population attends a church on a given Sunday in Australia. And I point to race only because his religion is heavily tied up in his ethnic community, his pastor being his father and the like.
          .
          So while it looks ok today (because it’s mocking a celebrity who’s tied to what many still consider the establishment religion), it may not look as acceptable with hindsight. :-

        • Hoss

          I believe in the Buble, have most his albums and seen him live a few times. Not sure if his any good with loaves of bread or fish, but its usually a good show.

        • Who?

          I think he’s pretty good with fish – isn’t he from a family of fishermen..?

        • Brisneyland Local

          yeah I saw it. It was hilarious for its time.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3rLof2cnzg

        • joy

          Your dreaming Who. Athiests are a clear minority here. These are people who believe there is no god. Good luck proving that one.

        • Who?

          Believing in a god doesn’t mean you have faith, let alone affiliation with a particular or organized faith, Joy. In my region, roughly 7.5% of the population attends a church on any given Sunday, and churches claim membership from 15% of the population. I don’t have numbers for the local mosque, but given the size of it, they’d struggle to get past 0.5% each weekend, and I’d guess more than 1.5% of the population (being generous).
          .
          The establishment – as in, the dominant religious position – isn’t atheist, it’s post-religious. It’s people who may believe in a god, may be agnostic, but generally don’t care. They set their ethics from their own morality, rather than referring to an external source. They don’t live in fear of someone throwing thunderbolts like Zeus, sending people to hell, etc.
          .
          Believing in ‘a god’ doesn’t mean you align yourself with traditional interpretations of a particular religion.
          Now, to be clear here, I’m not stating my beliefs, I’m not advocating for a position, I’m just expressing what I’ve seen statistically and practically. I know plenty of kids in Catholic schools who believe that doing mass is a waste of time, I know kids in state schools who go to church every week. But, overall, most families don’t live their day to day lives informed by a regular, consistent external influence from a religious organisation (even if they send their kids to a religious school).

        • Keith Butler

          Let’s face it, ALL rugby players should keep their gobs shut at all times unless they are breathing heavily while playing the frigging game!

        • Who?

          Clearly you’re not a halfback. :-P

        • Keith Butler

          Once a lock always a lock – with the ears as proof.

        • Greg

          The statement is nevertheless true they *should* (ffs) have their mouths shut. Especially 9s!

        • Who?

          I’d only accept that if it included all players, ever. The negative is that many posters on here would suddenly be silent. The positive is we wouldn’t have to listen to Kearns and Marshall again…

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Fuck none of the ones I referee ever do. Always happy to give me advice

    • joy

      That will flush those snowflake Christians out. You must have offended every one of them with that rant. Can’t wait for the pile on or has the moderator taken their responses down?

      • Hoss

        Its a broad church – all views welcome, some just don’t wield them like a weapon Joy. You would have been MVP about 700 years ago.

      • Keith Butler

        Hoss is an icon of moderation.

    • Brisneyland Local

      I am in, put me down for a 15% share. I will help with seed funding. This was I ensure I am sitting with all the good people. Yourself included my good man.
      That was fucking gold!

    • Keith Butler

      Checking with Dante’s Inferno, my lovely wife, who is an expert on these matters, has pointed out that you have missed the Acheron Water Ride – which is the only way into Hell ergo the only way into Izzyland, (ferry piloted by Charon aka Richie McCaw) accompanied by the wailing and blaspheming of damned souls (GAGRs) and the joyful singing of the blessed souls (Darkness supporters of course).

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      That is gold mate

    • From NooZealand

      LOL or on what you are sitting on or who is sitting on your lap. I shall consider after I talk to a pastor, a rabbi, a priest and a buddhist monk. https://media2.giphy.com/media/Ui49IRCHD2bII/giphy.gif

  • Yowie

    Your use of the expression “points” is highly offensive to people who are self-conscious about having large nipples. On behalf of those people I am now highly offended and will bleat about it accordingly….

    • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

      All the talk about winning is offensive to me as someone who supports the Wallabies.

      • Yowie

        haha, also I won’t be triggered so much if commentators chatting about non-Wallabies teams could PLEASE refrain from discussing the concept of “different game plans for different opposition teams” until after the World Cup. Thanks

  • Valzc

    “Rugby Australia is most grateful and extremely pleased to receive this support from the Australian Government for our foundation planning phase. “
    So RA going to be asking for the ‘funds’ to be forwarded 8 years in advance to get their creative bookkeeping in the black, as per the norm practice?

  • Missing Link

    Bloody hell I’d love to see another world cup on our shores, I doubt we’d get it though, but bloody hell it would be awesome.

    • David Creagh

      It might be the only thing that would save our code in the mid term. Pity we won’t get it because the IRB will take one look at how we run the game and run 100 miles to get away from it.

  • Dud Roodt

    Now you’re getting it! If your stupid beliefs include thinking someone is sinning by their mere existence, then keep those stupid beliefs to yourself. Simple really. Just like saying you think [insert race here] is evil would be frowned upon, so should saying [insert sexuality here] is evil. Simple stuff.

    “Let’s not kid ourselves, there is ALOT of delicate people these days” – yeah I agree, the fringe Christians really do seem to have their panties in a knot about not being able to say gay people are evil without receiving any consequences for saying that.

    “free speech does not exist!” – why does this always need to be pointed out to people;
    1. free speech is not a law, it’s an idea
    2. free speech does not mean you can say what you want without consequences
    3. Israel is free to say what he wants (as he has proved), he won’t go to jail for what he said, but a private company is also free to sack him. Or do you not like their freedom to do that?

    • Andrew Luscombe

      Everybody agrees with your “OK to be” points Dud, and your “not denigrating people” point too, even Folau. Nobody has said gay people are evil, or that their mere existence is a sin. Folau is trying to save them based on their behaviour – that’s what repenting is about. That’s why he said Jesus loves them.

      So how do you advise people who you firmly believe are heading for some terrible situation?

      How do you publicly affirm or discuss your beliefs with other interested members of the public – e.g. followers of a religious Instagram page? Should any religion that the media falsely presents as “denegrating” and starts throwing “-phobia” accusations at only be allowed in secret?

      RA is not a normal private company. It is a governing body for a sport. It has a duty to be inclusive of everybody, even those who occasionally recommend repentance for things that most people don’t regard as a sin.

      Nice video link above btw.

      • Dud Roodt

        “Nobody has said gay people are evil, or that their mere existence is a sin.”

        Well he really kind of did. If he wasn’t targeting who they are as people, then he should have said “heterosexuals and homosexuals are going to hell” and been done with it. But he chose to include a group of people for who they are – gay. Just as if he said people who are straight are going to hell – he would have been singling them out for the people they are.

        “Folau is trying to save them based on their behaviour” – right – he is saying they are making a choice to sin by being gay – like being gay is the same as cheating on a partner or being a drunk. He didn’t group straight people in that.

        “So how do you advise people who you firmly believe are heading for some terrible situation?” – Firstly I would never judge someone by the people they love and are attracted to. That is a cockhead thing to do in my opinion. I would also seriously hope that if, for whatever reason, I started believing in some god, I would have the foresight to think “hey, I love all this god stuff, but maybe, just maybe, a book written a couple of thousand years ago isn’t the only source of information, and I could try reading a book sometime on the science of sexuality. But, I would never believe in a god, so I don’t think this outcome will ever happen.

        “How do you publicly affirm or discuss your beliefs with other interested members of the public – e.g. followers of a religious Instagram page?” – I don’t know, maybe by leaving out the bit about someone living in sin for who they are?

        “Should any religion that the media falsely presents as “denegrating” and starts throwing “-phobia” accusations at only be allowed in secret?” – I think you are making the mistake that the religion is being hounded down. It’s not Christianity, it’s Folau’s fucking archaic interpretation of it. If he posted something like “I love Jesus and all his people” then whoopdyfuckingdo, we wouldn’t be in this mess. But he decided to say gay people are living in sin, so he’s being rightfully hounded for it.

        “RA is not a normal private company. It is a governing body for a sport. It has a duty to be inclusive of everybody, even those who occasionally recommend repentance for things that most people don’t regard as a sin.” – I haven’t seen RA be exclusive of religion? They’re well within their rights to not accept bigotry. I don’t think anyone would complain if one of the white players said his beliefs are that Polynesians are going to hell?

        • Pearcewreck

          “Well he really kind of did. If he wasn’t targeting who they are as
          people, then he should have said “heterosexuals and homosexuals are
          going to hell” and been done with it. But he chose to include a group of
          people for who they are – gay. Just as if he said people who are
          straight are going to hell – he would have been singling them out for
          the people they are.”

          That’s exactly what he did say Dud. He did condemn heterosexual people too.

          Adulterers!!! A strict Christian interpretation includes not just doing it, but even thinking about sex with someone other than your spouse. Checking out someone in the street is the same.
          We are all judged by Folau’s post, me most of all. Yes, ME most of ALL!!

          I am a terrible sinner, every day. Do I check out other women, I would be a liar if I said I didn’t. Have you ever checked out someone other than your spouse Dud?

          Also, you really are choosing to ignore,
          Liars – EVERY single person on the planet has done it. EVERY damn one. We are all guilty.

          Thieves – not as common.

          Cheaters – If you play Rugby and not tried to cheat at the breakdown well … you haven’t really played Rugby then have you.
          Kiwis think Richie McCaw was a good player, but he was the biggest cheat I have ever seen. So, yes Riche is going to hell unless he repents. Me too.

          Atheists – Obvious

          Idolators – Yep, we all do it. We all worship things other than God, you know, that new car, new phone, George Smith, Roger Federer. We all create idols, me most of all.

          This covers all humanity.

          And you still fail to acknowledge the final 2 lines of Folau’s post.

        • Dud Roodt

          But what is the common thread there PW? That everyone is making a choice to sin!

          So he didn’t say heterosexuals are going to hell because they are heterosexual, but he did say homosexuals are going to hell because they are homosexual – that is the difference.

        • Pearcewreck

          Show me a heterosexual who is not an Adulterer as defined above.
          It hurts me to say it, but even my wife is an Aduterer based on the strict definition above…… we all are…… so, hetrosexuals aregoing to hell because they are people, and we are all sinners.

        • Dud Roodt

          You’re missing the point. In a hypothetical I raised in another comment, say there are 2 people who haven’t committed a single “sin” except one is a homosexual, that homosexual is going to hell, and the heterosexual isn’t.
          Because according to Folau, the act of homosexuality is the sin, whereas the act of heterosexuality isn’t

        • Who?

          Dud, just FYI, the way many Christians often interpret where homosexuality becomes a sin is that same-sex attraction isn’t a sin, it’s a sin to act on the attraction. Temptation isn’t sin. It’s the same way you’ll see various lines drawn for what’s acceptable behaviour before crossing the line into fornication. There was a Seinfield episode along those lines, “When do you say you’ve had sex?” I think George’s line was something like, “When the nipple has made its first appearance.”
          .
          I’d imagine (with the tiny amount of media coverage I’ve seen around this subject, I have no first hand experience with it, not from either side) this is the point of ‘pray the gay away’ gay conversion therapy. That if you’re not acting on your biological drives, then you’re not in sin, even if you’re tempted. The same way that people in religions (of all sorts) abstain from many things – sex, alcohol, certain foods (it’d suck to grow up Jewish or Muslim, not being able to eat bacon, ham, pork, prawns…), company (i.e. people, the other sex), etc. Of course, those forms of abstinence vary in difficulty (it’s easy to avoid alcohol and bacon if you live in Saudi Arabia), some are mostly or nigh on impossible.
          .
          So, as ever, there’s shades of grey and interpretation with all this. I don’t think there’d be many people anywhere who think that a person’s mere existence is a sin, and I’d imagine people with those thoughts are even harder to find (I can’t imagine they stick their head above the trenches often).
          .
          And for historical perspective, given the requirement to ensure a viable population of adherents to the faith, it’s not surprising that most faiths banned homosexuality. It’s not the most effective method, biologically, of creating future generations. Most of these sorts of commands across all faiths can be seen to have some form of practical origin.

        • Dud Roodt

          I completely understand everything you’ve written, but it still really says “don’t be who you are”. Because while there are a multitude of differing opinions (it appears) on what constitutes the act of the sin – when we’re talking about heterosexuals, it’s quite clear that they are free to follow through with their desires (be it within the realms of the very carefully carved out limits) – whereas at no time should a homosexual follow through with their desires.

          And really, my whole point is that anyone can believe whatever they want, no matter how stupid or abhorrent it might be, but when an employee has been asked not to do something, and he does it, his employer does (or at last should have) the right to sack that person.

        • Who?

          On your first paragraph, mostly agreed. I’m sure there’s disagreement on where the line to sin is located, on every sin.
          Though I’ll note that there’s always someone somewhere who’s crazy enough to think as a teenager, “I know, I’ll be a priest/monk/nun/etc” in whatever religion it is, and face a life of forced celibacy. Some people, somehow, can do that. But they’re a tiny, tiny fraction of the population, and a percentage of them (across multiple religions) through the centuries have brought their religions into disrepute through their failure to maintain their vows, and the way that’s exploded into violence. So it’s not ‘just’ the LGBTI community who are being told not to follow their biological imperatives (because ‘don’t act on same sex attraction’ doesn’t necessarily mean, “you’re not allowed to be camp/butch/*insert stereotype or reality of LGBTI behaviour not directly related to sexual activity here*.”), it’s less narrowly focused than that.
          .
          The second paragraph, I get that. The question, then, is who is judge and jury on whether or not the behaviour is what the employee was instructed not to do (i.e. did Folau think his comment was compliant with his directives? It wouldn’t surprise me if he thought he did comply), whether those demands are enforceable in his contract, whether it’s lawful to make those demands, etc. We’ll see stage one of that play out this Saturday, and I’m expecting he’ll be sacked. But he’ll then go to the NSW Supreme Court, where I think he’s a better than even chance of winning it. And then RA will pay him out to go away.
          .
          And we’ll all still be very sad this happened – wherever the fence may be (one on side, the other, or firmly betwixt one’s cheeks!).

        • Dud Roodt

          I just can’t imagine that this exact thing wasn’t mentioned to him as what he did last year was almost identical. But RA have been known to fuck a thing or two up in their day – so we’ll see.

          “And we’ll all still be very sad this happened – wherever the fence may be (one on side, the other, or firmly betwixt one’s cheeks!).”

          Couldn’t agree more. While I think he’s incredibly dumb, and possibly verging on being an extremist – I don’t think he’s a bad bloke. Just misguided. And I really wish the situation hadn’t occured.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          I’m hurt that you called saint Richie a cheat

        • Greg

          Sir Cheat”?

        • Andrew Luscombe

          He didn’t say anyone is going to hell. He said hell is there. It exists. It is awaiting.

          Choice has nothing to do with being a sinner. According to Folau, and Christianity, everyone is a sinner. Life is about facing challenges placed there by god so that we can develop as beings, and propensity to sin is a key part of the challenge. It’s all about the way you respond to being born with your own particular mix of propensities to sin. Giving in to urges or sins does not consign you to hell. Sins are not laws. It is about the way you live with them and grow with them and your effort and beliefs at the end. Redemption is available for everybody.

          He has not judged anyone. He has reminded like-minded followers to keep on trying to deal with their propensity to sin according to the bible. He may also be hoping to warn the otherwise unwary because he wants them to do well when death comes.

          RA are seeking to exclude someone from Rugby. That is by definition not inclusive.

          By the technical definition of bigotry, you and I are both bigots. Look it up before you get offended. Yes, they do have to accept bigots. No they do not have to accept people who try to denigrate people, or bully people, or who propose violence against people, or a bunch of other nasty things. Folau just hasn’t done any of those nasty things. That’s the main difference between you and I – I take him on his word because I see no reason to doubt his intentions, and you see something else. I don’t think you, Folau, or I differ on tolerance and inclusion. It’s a different understanding of what sin is, and it’s implications.

        • Dud Roodt

          “He said hell is there. It exists. It is awaiting.” – yes, and what is the implication? That the people committing the sins he lists are going there? Or are the two unrelated?

          “Redemption is available for everybody.” – again, the implication being that people who are born gay should not be who they are, this means it is (to him) a choice). And he compares it to a crime (theft).

          “RA are seeking to exclude someone from Rugby..” but not for no reason is it? It’s because they asked him not to do something, then he did the exact thing they asked him not to. Again, I keep repeating myself, but no one would have a problem if a racist said his beliefs are that Polynesians are living in sin because they are Polynesian.

          “I take him on his word” – please don’t get me wrong – I truly don’t believe he had malice in his intentions, I just believe he’s not particularly the sharpest tool in the shed, he beliefs something incredibly archaic that belongs in a different era, he doesn’t understand basic science on account of his beliefs and intelligence, but mainly I believe he went against the wishes of his employer who has the right (in my opinion) to sack him for it. Which is the crux of the issue.

          For instance, if I walked into my work with a t shirt that said “gays are going to hell” – I wouldn’t have even been lucky enough to get the warning Folau got

        • Andrew Luscombe

          You appear to ignore the key point about what sin is, and draw implications that the writer (me, Folau, whoever?) did not intend because of it. Hell is a motivational thing, it is not a predicted destination. This should be clear from the statement that “giving in to sins does not consign anyone to hell”. That’s why we can all be sinners and still go to heaven. Heaven is full of sinners too. And they are there because they were born sinners, and their sinningness enabled them to grow spiritually as they lived their life. Sins aren’t laws (it seems to need repeating). It is not a matter of “a choice”.

          Our particular propensities to sin are a major part of who each of us is. It is not denigrating to discuss them in general. It is not denying ourselves to view them as sins. Theft happens to be both a sin in a religious context, and a crime in a legal one. You switch the context around to draw implications that weren’t intended. When included in a religious statement about sins, theft is meant as a sin. Most other things on the list were only sins.

          Yes, him breaking the code is the crux of the issue with his employment. He didn’t say “gays are going to hell”, so Peter FitzSimons’ T shirt analogy is silly. Does the code of conduct prevent people providing reminders and warnings about sin to religious minded followers? We don’t know what his so called warnings last time consisted of – “be respectful” probably. He believes he has been respectful. And they weren’t official employment warnings because RA agreed with his explanation a year ago, they were just workplace reminders. Anyway let’s see what the hearing decides. Maybe he can explain his view of sin to them.

          If he is cleared by the hearing, and he is still excluded from rugby, then we are moving in to religious persecution territory.

        • Dud Roodt

          I grasp all of what you’re saying – but I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying.
          Everyone seems to be implying that Folau listed so many sins that he listed everybody in his list. And that may be the case, but the reason for someone’s sin is not the same.
          He is saying that due to someone’s biological wiring, they live in sin if they act on it. He didn’t say this about heterosexuals. Otherwise he could have left the homosexual part out of it and said anyone who commits any of the other sins (whether you’re gay or straight) is going to hell.

          If that sin he listed was based on the colour of a person’s skin, which is also a biological trait that can’t be chosen, no one would be defending his right to “free speech”.

          OK so if he didn’t say “gays are going to hell” (this is really just semantics), the point still stands that if I had a shirt on at work that said “hell awaits homosexuals” the outcome would be the same.

        • Andrew Luscombe

          All propensities to sin are due to biological wiring, put there by god, as challenges to us. I know what you are saying, but “biological wiring” is not the basis of any moral or legal code. There’s no large religion I know of that says “it’s good for me to fornicate because I was born with strong desires in that direction”. You’re better off justifying homosexuality as not a sin by saying it does no harm, or it is inherently good, or something like that. Being born a certain way won’t get you far in any religious (or legal) discussion. Folau appears to have been born with a fairly strong desires to spread his beliefs, so is he excused for that reason alone?

          Yes everyone’s mix of sinning ways are specific to them. He didn’t go into a lot of detail about why sins exist or how they come to be, so no he didn’t explain his whole religious view. It was a short Instagram post. If he was to talk about heterosexuals, he would probably say something like “it is the way humans reproduce and is therefore okay within a child bearing marriage – but not outside it” hence fornication and adultery in his list along with homosexuality. If he was a Catholic, he would even restrict sex inside marriage to that intended for reproduction. He could have maybe included homosexual acts within fornication, but that’s not standard and would require some explanation that would also have been subject to being taken out of context too, and not really changed the meaning that he intended to convey.

          I’m not arguing based on an expanded view of free speech. I’m arguing that he is within modern norms. it is only drawing wrong implications, aided by a willing media trying to make a big story, that is the problem.

          He didn’t wear any controversial T shirt to work. He posted something to his mostly religious followers on his religious themed Instagram page.

        • Dud Roodt

          But he did (according to RA) go against his employers wishes by doing so.
          So we’ll have to see if they are right or wrong

    • Ads

      Cracking straw man. Izzy and very few Christians have said anyone is evil. He would argue he is trying to help people. They have said all of us are sinners and will go to hell if we don’t repent (Nutta’s drunkards and fornicators). This is the fundamental tenet of Christianity. Why it has more nuance than your simplistic Do’s and Don’t above is because:
      a) you keep ignoring that there is no discrimination – everyone is buggered
      b) the do’s and the don’t are not mutually exclusive. The basis of Christianity is also to tell people about it (The Great Commission). You thereby limit their religious freedom which is still currently illegal.
      c) the hypocrisy of you saying “i can tell you what to say or what not to say, and be a bigot towards people with those beliefs but you can’t”

      RA are free to sack him, but seem to not have done anything clever that would make that possible. We will see. As I’ve said, I reckon he will lose the tribunal but win a court case.

      • Pearcewreck

        Spot on Ads.
        A Christian viewpoint is that Folau is reaching out to all people by showing them the compassion of Jesus.
        People completely ignore the last few lines of his post, but they are the most important.
        Also, many people only chose to focus on the Homosexual line in the post, but, as you point out, Folau’s post condemns every person on the planet.
        Is any one seriously going to say they have never told a lie, or cheated at anything?

        You are one of the few people on here who gets it.
        Most don’t, or else they do, but it dosen’t suit there argument, so the ignore it.

        • Dud Roodt

          “Is any one seriously going to say they have never told a lie, or cheated at anything?” – non one is going to say that are they, but let’s say in a hypothetical world there are 2 people who haven’t done any of those things, but one of them is a homosexual, that person is going to hell for that last one – which means your statement of “Folau’s post condemns every person on the planet.” is not accurate.

          “You are one of the few people on here who gets it.
          Most don’t” – yes, you’ll have to excuse some of us for not completely grasping the concept of this particularly fairytale.

          “or else they do, but it doesn’t suit there argument, so the ignore it.” seems you’re doing a little bit of that yourself PW

        • Hoss

          So where do loving, married SSM couples who are Christians fit into all this – where do they end up ??

          Ibiza ?

        • Dud Roodt

          No Hoss! In the fiery pits of hell where they bloody well belong for their stupid sexuality!

        • Hoss

          Better tell my husband to pack the SP50+ then.

          And a good book.

        • Dud Roodt

          Imagine how much more fun hell is going to be.
          I can picture you down there now, in your mankini, jotting down clever new names for the Hell First XV

        • GeorgiaSatellite

          Fahrenheit 451, perhaps?

      • Dud Roodt

        Aren’t those who go to “hell” evil by definition alone?

        “They have said all of us are sinners” – hmm, gonna have to correct you there, as he didn’t say heterosexuals are sinners did he?

        What’s the common thread through the list of supposedly damned folks? They all make a choice to commit sin. So he’s saying that gay people are choosing to be gay, against gods wishes (why god created homosexuality in the first place I’ll never know – seems a bit counterintuitive), like people who drink too much and cheat on their partners. So to paraphrase, he’s saying “don’t be who you are or you’ll go to hell”. If I’m a gay man who doesn’t cheat on a partner, doesn’t drink, doesn’t worship false idols etc etc etc, seems I’m getting stitched up royally by this god when the straight bloke who doesn’t do all those things gets a pass?

        “a) you keep ignoring that there is no discrimination – everyone is buggered” – please see above – not everyone, now is it?

        “b) the do’s and the don’t are not mutually exclusive. The basis of Christianity is also to tell people about it (The Great Commission). You thereby limit their religious freedom which is still currently illegal.” – so the basis of Christianity is to tell gay people they live in sin for the way they were born (again, thanks god, proper stitch up)? There must be A LOT of fake christians out there!

        “c) the hypocrisy of you saying “i can tell you what to say or what not to say, and be a bigot towards people with those beliefs but you can’t” – wait… so there’s hypocrisy in saying “believe what you want – just don’t be a c**t”? Huh, well I never.

        • Ads

          a) Nah think you are wrong on that too. I reckon he would be basing the meme on
          1 Cor 6: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
          Did you see the “men who practice homosexuality” bit? You keep repeating the line about it’s the act of committing the sin for everyone but not for homosexuals. You’re wrong. Now you might choose to think there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex, or think it’s an arsehole of a life to make someone same-sex attracted and tell them not to live that out. That’s your opinion, but it’s not the Bible’s. I’m sure you are happy to have those who have biological attraction to animals or kiddies, or hetero rapists not act it out. We have many laws that limit biological urges. You just don’t like the Christian one. Fair enough. Don’t be a Christian. But drop the self-righteousness. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. Everyone is buggered like I said.
          b) nearly as good a straw man as your first.

        • Who?

          Everyone is buggered like I said.

          That’s some really unfortunate phrasing right there…

        • Ads

          lol. Coulda worded that better agree!

        • Dud Roodt

          “You keep repeating the line about it’s the act of committing the sin for everyone but not for homosexuals” – you seem a little slow on the uptake. By committing the act that makes them who they are, they are somehow sinning whereas a heterosexual who has sex is not? Quite the double standard.

          “That’s your opinion, but it’s not the Bible’s” – and unfortunately for you and your ilk, it’s the opinion of the country you live in too. You know, the one that actually creates the rules and laws we live by.

          “I’m sure you are happy to have those who have biological attraction to animals or kiddies, or hetero rapists not act it out. ” aaah I knew it wouldn’t be long before you compared homosexuality to beastiality! It’s always simmering there just below the surface isn’t it Ads, let it out Ads, let it out! Comparing a relationship between two consenting adults with rape and beastiality might just be the most intellectually lazy and dishonest argument one can make. But I’m going to be honest – I didn’t expect much more from you champ.

          ” You just don’t like the Christian one. ” – that’s right, because, now listen in close for this one – they aren’t laws. just like the “laws” of Scientology mean absolutely zilch in Australia, as do your “laws”. They, much like god, are made up.

          “”All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. Everyone is buggered like I said.” I can’t help you if you won’t listen. You’re lost unfortunately.

          Also, I’m not sure you know what strawman means.

        • Ads

          Nah third time wrong. You said “By committing the act that makes them who they are, they are somehow sinning whereas a heterosexual who has sex is not? Quite the double standard.”
          Hetero sex out of marriage is sin. Hetero sex before marriage is sin. Looking at someone lustfully is sin. There’s plenty of examples of hetero sex and sin. And there is a definite difference between who you like and who/if you shag. They are 2 different things. Who you shag is a pretty narrow way to define who you are.

          And let me me be clear I’m not equating homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality as a moral judgement. You had said repeatedly it’s “biological”. I was giving legal examples that limit biological urges, because your case was largely built upon “it’s OK because it’s biological. It’s who they are.” I could equally say hetero sex between a 15 year old and an 18 year old is illegal. That’s biological but deemed illegal, if the age of consent is still 16. I’m not sure. 16 was a long time ago. That’s why I didn’t use that one. I think it’s different by state and I couldn’t be stuffed reading about all that. It might be different in Cessnock. Hoss?

          I agree with you that Christian beliefs aren’t law obviously, despite the success of the West being built largely on the Judaeo-Christian ethic and the sovereignty of the individual. That’s where the free speech stuff comes in. But religious freedom is a law. So are many examples of limitation of biological urges.

          I thought your attacks were based on your misrepresentation of Christianity (a classic straw man). I guess you’re right. It’s probably not a straw man if you just don’t know what you are talking about.

        • Dud Roodt

          “Hetero sex out of marriage is sin. Hetero sex before marriage is sin. Looking at someone lustfully is sin. There’s plenty of examples of hetero sex and sin. And there is a definite difference between who you like and who/if you shag. They are 2 different things. Who you shag is a pretty narrow way to define who you are.”

          Aaah right, I think I get it now, so a homosexual who has sex once married is not a sinner? Riiiight. So you’re right, it is no different to heterosexuality. Seems weird he only mentioned homosexuality though…

          But you see Ads, you are comparing the two. Because you’re saying that my acceptance of homosexuality as a biological trait must mean I also am OK with beastiality, pedophilia and rape. You’d be wrong.

          “That’s where the free speech stuff comes in. But religious freedom is a law.” – I will give this one more crack – would you be OK with a white player saying a black player was living in sin because of who they were? I’ve tried this many times, and it seems to be ignored every time.

          “I thought your attacks were based on your misrepresentation of Christianity (a classic straw man).”

          Let me break this one down for you a little more simply;

          – you said what Folau did was part of being a Christian
          – Folau told everyone that gay people are destined for hell
          – I asked if you meant tell gay people they’re destined for hell is the basis of Christianity

          What am I missing here?

        • GO THE Q REDS

          Well said debate there mate. Your are very fair and right in every point! But most people won’t agree because it’s cooler to make fun of others, disrespect their beliefs and act like the”cool kids” as if a life of drinking and flippant sex(amoumg other things) is good for you!
          Personally I know 3 gay people. All 3 are “real” homosexuals….not social gay’s…. And all 3 admit being gay just isn’t natural. They can’t do anything about it tho and embrace it…… but they aren’t stubborn to reality.

    • Pearcewreck

      Are you kidding, Dud.

      “If your stupid beliefs include thinking someone is sinning by their mere
      existence, then keep those stupid beliefs to yourself. Simple really.
      Just like saying you think [insert race here] is evil would be frowned
      upon, so should saying [insert sexuality here] is evil. Simple stuff.”

      Here you are getting on your self righteous, holier than thou high horse, and yet calling people you disagree with “stupid”.
      Unbelievable.

      “”Let’s not kid ourselves, there is ALOT of delicate people these days” –
      yeah I agree, the fringe Christians really do seem to have their
      panties in a knot about not being able to say gay people are evil
      without receiving any consequences for saying that.”

      Really trying to twist reality now aren’t you Dud, considering this whole debate was started by reaction to Folau’s post, ie , the complete opposite side of the argument, but no, Dud, as usual, you don’t let facts get in the way of a good story.

      As for your Free Speech rant,
      1.I already schooled you about free speech last week. Just because something is not law, does not mean it doesn’t exist!!
      2. I agree to an extent.
      3. No, his employer has NO right to sack him for a private Instagram Post about his personal beliefs. None at all. Example, I may have a NO ALCOHOL policy at work, but that doesn’t mean you can’t drink in you private life.

      • Dud Roodt

        “Are you kidding, Dud.” nope.

        “Here you are getting on your self righteous, holier than thou high horse, and yet calling people you disagree with “stupid”.
        Unbelievable.” – yeah, it’s me getting holier than thou….

        “Really trying to twist reality now aren’t you Dud, considering this whole debate was started by reaction to Folau’s post, ie , the complete opposite side of the argument, but no, Dud, as usual, you don’t let facts get in the way of a good story.” – well I guess if we’re tracking back to the beginning, it’s Folau who is the delicate one as he thinks he can tell people how to live their lives.

        “I already schooled you about free speech last week.” – haha, this is classic. OK champ, you schooled me by saying “Just because something is not law, does not mean it doesn’t exist!!”. If you can be censured for your speech – you are not free to say what you want without consequences. What about this don’t you understand?

        “No, his employer has NO right to sack him for a private Instagram Post about his personal beliefs. None at all. Example, I may have a NO ALCOHOL policy at work, but that doesn’t mean you can’t drink in you private life.” – so I assume if Folau loses his code of conduct hearing you’ll admit that, yes, in fact, an employer can fire an employee for things they deem to be harmful to their business. if you like, I can even find you articles of people being fired for doing things outside of work hours. Would you like me to do that so you can understand this?

        • Pearcewreck

          Folau will lose his Code of Conduct hearing, 100% guaranteed to lose it, we all know that it will merely be a rubber stamp of the RA decision. What I’m saying is the Code of Conduct hearing is meaningless.

          But if IF then takes RA to court and sues them, he will win, 100%.
          Private Instagram Account, Private Beliefs, No laws Broken, No Social Media Clause in his contract, didn’t bring the game into disrepute as his post gained 13,000 likes ( I think it was 13,000, correct me if I’m wrong).

          Yes, you are right, people get fired for doing all sorts of things.
          People also win Unfair Dismissal Claims in court, so it goes both ways.

          Folau will win if it goes to court, he will receive a Multi Million Dollar pay out which may well bankrupt RA, Rayleen Castle will go, some RA board members will also go because of their roles in creating this disaster.

        • Dud Roodt

          “But if IF then takes RA to court and sues them, he will win, 100%.” – We shall see I guess.

          “didn’t bring the game into disrepute” – you don’t think this has brought the game into disrepute? This past 2 weeks has been the most intense scrutiny (negatively) the code has had in years. Articles every single day about whether he should be sacked or not.
          “Bringing the game into disrepute” is an incredibly broad term and this qualifies without a doubt. And likes on instagram don’t change that argument.

        • Who?

          I don’t think Folau brought the game into disrepute. The way that RA has handled the situation has made it very clear that they are inclusive (in the modern sense of the word), and that they don’t share Folau’s beliefs. So it could be argued that the current situation is that the game is not in disrepute, but that Folau’s statements, the (sloppy) reporting on them, and RA’s actions have brought Folau into disrepute.

        • Dud Roodt

          I think the definition of the term will be the important thing – and they are particularly broad generally speaking and can mean any action that brings undue scrutiny on the code in general

        • Who?

          I’m sure RA will rule he brought the game into disrepute, I just mean that, in general, RA has come out of this in a very positive light in the media. It was something pointed out on ABC’s Offsiders last week, and I think it was a very fair point. The game has clearly distanced itself from the comments made by Folau, disendorsed them as not being the position of the code.
          .
          There’s the question, though, as to how it’s acceptable for the game to disendorse comments from an employee, but the employee’s required to endorse all positions from the code (such as RA’s position on SSM, which triggered Folau’s first post on the subject). How that balance goes, where the lines of individual expression and corporate expression sit. Which is (genuinely) a very interesting question. It’s pretty clear when it comes to sponsorship (i.e. don’t wear Nikes, if you’re Michael Clarke and a CA employee, you drive a Ford, and buy your Aston Martin in your fiancée’s name), but other areas, it’s not so clear. It will be interesting to see where that’s defined, not just in this case, but in general, especially in an age where EVERYONE is on some form of social media. Which has caused a few electoral candidates to fall out this week. Very few people have ‘clean’ social media records these days.

        • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

          But Folau doesn’t have to endorse all positions of RA.

          He just has to not publicly contradict certain policies.

          Very key difference.

        • Who?

          Isn’t that effectively the same thing, though..? Silence is the same thing as endorsing the policies. If it weren’t the case, then surely he wouldn’t have felt the need to clarify his position on SSM back in 2017.
          .
          It’s a question of corporate rights against individual rights, and the capacity of the public to recognise that a person’s position doesn’t necessarily have to align with their employer’s position on the same thing. Illustrated by the fact that companies often have lines like, “All opinions and views are those of the sender, unless expressly stated to be the views of the company,” in email signatures/footers. It’s interesting that the same doesn’t seem to be able to apply to social media.

        • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

          No, if silence is seen as the same as endorsing the policies, the poster wouldn’t have asked.

        • Who?

          I don’t think he was asked back then..? The question/answer post was April 2018 – different Insta message.
          .
          “Have I, have you, been too silent? Is there an easy crime of silence?”
          ― Carl Sandburg
          .
          “If I were to remain silent, I’d be guilty of complicity.”
          ― Albert Einstein
          .
          Silence is definitely seen as agreement…

        • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

          No, silence isn’t seen as agreement I don’t think, it is why you have the right to remain silent when questioned on certain things in a court of law in the US.

          Folau agreeing not to speak out against homosexual acts does not mean that he is in favour of homosexual acts. That’s a way too long bow to draw, in my opinion.

          Remaining silent when a travesty of justice goes on. Well, that is a point of debate and contention in philosophy. But, for example, being guilty of not speaking out against, say, the Holocaust could potentially be seen as being guilty of complicity. Even then, it wouldn’t mean that someone would agree with the Holocaust. Just that they’re not willing to put their own body on the line to stand up against it.

          Folau has obviously made the decision to put his career on the line to speak out against homosexuality. That is his wont. But it isn’t as if him not speaking out what have made us all thing he agreed with it. I suspected he was against homosexuality and SSM before he said what he did, and strongly suspect plenty of other Wallabies feel the same way. The fact they don’t choose to publicise their opinions, doesn’t mean I think they agree with RA.

        • Who?

          Silence when choosing not to incriminate yourself is a bit different to staying silent on a point where you’ve been portrayed as agreeing with something where your real position is the opposite. And strongly opposed.
          .
          Folau’s position may be that it’s a travesty of misrepresentation, and that it’s a major crisis with people needing to avoid permanent negative consequences. Maybe we should all be grateful no one’s asked him about abortion… He’s likely got equally strong views there, too.
          In terms of not being willing to put their own body on the line to stand up to it, I can’t remember how that worked out for people at Nuremburg. But I didn’t think it helped their cause?
          .
          I agree he’s put his career on the line to speak out. But then it’s also the complicated legal questions we’ve covered too many times… Won’t it be great when this is over? :-(

        • Greg

          I just want this all to be finished.

          He was asked to behave a certain way on social media.
          If he did not think that was reasonable then don’t sign the contract. Go to an employer that has different policies. That is his right.

          He signed up. He is honour-bound to follow the policies.

          All players, including Mr Folau, are servants of the game, not the other way around.

        • Who?

          I agree, I want it over.
          .
          But there’s clear questions over whether it was part of his contract, whether what he did was a breach of the discussion, whether he breached the code of conduct, whether the code of conduct is framed in such a manner that it’s even remotely enforceable in court, and whether it’s legal to request what’s been asked.
          I’m not saying he should’ve made the post – I don’t see there was ever any upside to his post. Not for anyone. But I don’t see that it’s as cut and dried as many wish – on both sides of the argument.

        • Custard Taht

          The problem for Folau is that whilst it was his private account, his profile picture had him in a Waratah jersey. So, it can be easily argued that his post was made whilst representing the Waratahs.

          The Army made it clear (long before social media) we were clear to say what we want, just don’t be in uniform or identify yourself as being in the military.

          A lot has changed since then!

  • T.edge

    Nice one Sully.

  • Nutta

    I was unaware there was a right to not be offended…?

    • Custard Taht

      I was unaware we even had rights!

      • Nutta

        Under the Constitution we as Australians we have 7:
        Section 41: Right to vote in Commonwealth elections
        Section 116: A general right to have and practice religion of choice
        Section 80: Trial by jury for an indictable offence against the Commonwealth
        Section 51(xxxi): Compulsory acquisition of land by govt must be ‘on just terms’ (The Castle provision)
        Section 117: No discrimination between citizens of States
        Section 75: Access to the high court
        A limited right to freedom of political expression (as part of the right to vote)

        • Hoss

          Section 117 surely can’t be right ??? Am i supposed to believe that all states are created equal – even Tasmania ???

          Surely that’s a typo.

        • Nutta

          “A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.”
          — Section 117

          So if a thirteen-fingered, sister-shagging, Banjo-playing, No-teeth, Deliverance-Extra-Wannabe from Van Diemen’s Land needs a Penicillin injection to tidy-up his last hit of gonorrhea, he cannot be charged more for that injection in Victoria than he was in Queensland than he was in Tasmania. Basically, in real terms it means you can’t have inter-state tariffs or taxes etc.

        • Greg

          @Nutta that is harsh and unfair. That should read “cousin shagging”. Tasmanians have standards.

        • Greg

          All states are equal… it is just that Tassie is more equal than others.

  • Damo

    Just saw the story on Fox announcing Rod Kafer’s resignation from RA. Some interesting quotes attributed to him including “ups and downs” over the past 18 months. Walked? Pushed? Coming not long after the arrival of O’Connor & Johnson. Coincidental? Gotta say I wasn’t really sure what his job spec was.

    • Who?

      I wonder if it was just that they need Bernie to do something, and Kafe already has an income from Fox..? There’s irony there if it were true, Kafe making way for Larkham, again.

    • Hoss

      You gotta link to the story Damo ?

      • Damo
        • Hoss

          Cheers mate – i see Izzy cried during one of his sermons. Anyone know it that turned to wine ?? I am working on a theory…………………

        • Brisneyland Local

          Oh do tell!

      • Brisneyland Local

        Also if you go to the fox sports website there is a odcast worth listening too. Whislt as a general rule I dont like Kafe that much some of the discussions he has on the podcast give some food for thought.

        • GO THE Q REDS

          I used to love him. He was so factual and delved into statistical conversation. Then he started pushing a clear RA and Wallabies agenda which ruined the extreme lack of bias he was so loved for. Maybe he can get back to that…..

        • Brisneyland Local

          He clearly sounded like he was heading back to that direction.

    • Nutta

      What’s really sad is that Kafe’s inclusion didn’t change a thing. And likewise his resignation won’t either…

  • Who?

    Rugby’s the game they play in heaven… :-

  • Kiwi rugby lover

    Nah mate. IAN Kirkpatrick resides as God so Richie’s safe

    • Who?

      I thought Fitzpatrick was known as God..?

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        Only in his own mind. And any referees silly enough to listen

  • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

    You’re right that there is a concerning trend where more and more ideas are being censured in public forums, and not being published in the media, etc. Apply the same standards and we probably wouldn’t ever have gotten the secular state with free speech in the first place.

    Universities that no platform controversial views concern me most. If anywhere should be a bastion of free speech, it is universities.

  • Greg

    Just as an aside…. I think we are missing the point with the long theological discussion.

    1. If an employer has a requirement in their contract that is unacceptable to an employee, should the employee sign the contract? y/n
    2. Did an employee of a company do something that they had explicitly been asked not to do? y/n
    3. if yes, should that employee seek alternative employment? y/n

    Isn’t it that simple? It sure is in my work place.

    The discussion has nothing to do with religion.

    • Who?

      The discussion only has relevance to religion in regards to the question, is it legal for the employer to put in contractual requirements that inhibit freedom of religion and religious expression? Which isn’t up for debate until this all goes to court, after the Code of Conduct breach hearing tomorrow.
      .
      Your points…
      1. There’s no social media component to Folau’s contract, it’s a standard RA contract, RUPA’s EBA prevents them from adding anything that isn’t in favour of the player (i.e. restrictions on social media that aren’t greed in the EBA). So the only thing in the contact is the Code of Conduct compliance. Whether or not that’s been breached, that’s up for debate, and I’m sure will be debated on Saturday.
      To your original (slightly mis-framed) question, should you sign a contract where you feel requirements are unacceptable? Well, it’s not clear that Folau’s done that (given it’s not clear he believes he’s breached the Code of Conduct, and any extra clauses/agreements aren’t permitted under the EBA). And even if it were the case, I’m sure there’s plenty of times where that happens (because many contracts are far too thick to be thoroughly perused and debated before agreement on employment is reached), and it ends up either mediated or in the courts.
      In fact, my first employer? He signed me up to a contract whereby he withheld $$$$ in wages. I signed up. I later was informed the agreement wasn’t legal (it was well below award rates and outside award conditions). After I left, we went to court and I won – I received over $10k in backpay. Not bad for a job where my starting rate was $4.92/hr! Should I have simply not signed the contract, chosen to remain unemployed (and therefore lost my unemployment benefits – I had no money, my family had no money), because the contract was questionable..?
      .
      2. Up for debate. He was told not to target anyone, he didn’t target any one group UNLESS you go into the sort of debate that’s been had on here for weeks (which doesn’t bear rehashing). It’s not a theological debate, it’s a debate of semantics. So, that’s clearly being debated.
      .
      3. If it’s a breach, the employee will face the consequences, but it’s not up to them to seek other employment willingly. No other RA employee has had to face that situation. They’ve all fought to maintain their jobs. And when the issue is a complex area of law and interpretation, they’re able to appeal to the Courts, which I’m sure will happen, pretty well regardless of who wins this weekend’s hearing.
      .
      I agree, the theological debate is largely irrelevant and unhelpful. It also gets way too detailed and complicated for people who (for most of us) don’t have the necessary attention or open mind to see or remotely care how others might view the world. It doesn’t suit the click-bait, 3 word slogan 24 hour news cycle social media generation (which is all of us today).
      My only interest in this is to see how it plays out. I’m happy to make predictions as to what will happen, but I’m not happy to speak abusively about any group involved in this (and clearly some pretty strong language has been used to describe Folau, in response to personal interpretations of his post).
      But reaching conclusions, especially about motive (i.e. RA’s right, he’s a bigot so they should sack him, or RA’s clearly anti-Christian), based on personal opinion – especially personal opinion about religion – does nothing but search for confirmation bias.

      • Greg

        I take your points but think it is much simpler.

        1. Were things explained to him which were unacceptable? y/n
        2. Did he do them? y/n

        If 2 x “yes” then he does not need a code of conduct hearing. He should resign.

        if the answer to 1) is “n” then there is not a discussion to be had.

        I have a personal view that a) he had no ill intent and b) that his behaviour was unacceptable. These points don’t change the assessment above.

        • Who?

          You can think it’s simpler, but if it were, it’d be over by now. It’s not simple, there’s no specific social media clause in the contract, it’s only the code of conduct, that’s all down to personal interpretation.
          .
          In terms of, “they said don’t do this,” unless it’s in writing AND legally enforceable, who cares what they said? They may as well have said, “You’re required to go and spike opponents’ drinks in order to get them to fail drug tests.” It wouldn’t be legally enforceable, so the request can’t be enforced. If this can’t be proven as a clear breach of the code of conduct, and that it’s not a suppression of his right to religious expression, then it’s unenforceable.
          .
          You may feel that he should do the ‘right’ thing, but this is happening at the same time a bloke who’s accused of rape is taking the NRL to court for saying he can’t play until the criminal case is done (something I would consider nothing worse than bail). I’d have thought that’s way worse than Folau’s situation (given he isn’t up on criminal charges, and de Belin’s situation isn’t dismissal, it’s just putting things on hold until the case is proven or dismissed).
          .
          I should say, I wasn’t referring to you – or anyone else personally – in terms of reaching decisions or abuse. I’m just trying to tamp down the situation a little, while we wait for a final outcome. :-)

        • Greg

          I am only talking about the Folau situation.

          Nothing else.

          Everyone makes it more complex than it is.

          I agreed personal judgements and commentary aren’t needed.

          He broke an agreement, or he did not.

          That simple.

        • Who?

          And none of us know what’s in the agreement, whether the agreement is a legal, enforceable agreement, or whether he even technically violated the agreement (in spite of the claims of RA, because they’re countered by Folau’s own claims).
          .
          So, he may have broken an agreement, which may be unenforceable. And may have broken the Code of Conduct, which may be somewhat more enforceable, but may still fail in court.
          Sadly, nothing’s simple here.
          .
          And it’s even less simple when people say he should walk away because he’s done something he seemingly doesn’t think he’s done.

  • AllyOz

    Writing this a day late so possibly won’t get seen (and maybe just as well). However, there is a report in Tele today again giving more detail on Israel’s contract. Regardless of your view either way on whether Folau has breached or not do you think it was reticent of RA to (1) re-sign a player with a previous code of conduct breach/warning without putting further clauses in his contract (2) going back to said player afterwards to get him to sign amendments to that contract (potentially admitting doubts around the strength of the code of conducts ability to prevent or restrict future breaches) (3.) announcing immediate termination of the contract rather than suspending the player, then holding the code of conduct hearing before termination. (4.) not requesting all players and coaches to refrain from commenting prior to the final decision of the code of conduct hearing.

    I know its easy to look at these things in retrospect but regardless of your view on the wrong and rights of this it seems to me that the RA approach needs to be reviewed. I don’t argue that were going to be in a very difficult position anyway but it seems they have contributed to a major degree on how much damage this has caused, the length of time it has spent in the press etc. An immediate suspension would have potentially satisfied the sponsors requirements while not denying the player natural justice and allowing RA to shore up and prepare its legal approach. Players and coaches could have then said we don’t want to comment ahead of the outcome of the hearing and, once the ruling had been made, there may not have been a necessity to say if they were prepared to play with him or not – it would have kept a lot of the media commentary to a minimum until to RA had a much stronger position to stand on. Anyway, as I said above much easier in retrospect and I admittedly don’t have the legal knowledge or the full understanding of the issue but it just seems that this could have been better managed from RA’s perspective. Now there is the possibility that we (1.) lose the sponsor (2.) lose the player but still have to pay him out (3.) ostracise some elements of the rugby community (on both sides of the debate) (4.) add to any division already caused through mismanagement of the issue.

    • Bernie Chan

      Yeh…after warning Izzy, RA then sign him to a $multimillion long term contract…defies common sense. Were RA and the NSWRU so desperate to retain Izzy that they didn’t ‘war game’ the possible outcomes?
      But should we be surprised at the way RA handles player contracting? I suspect not…

  • Bernie Chan

    Vermuelen v Hanigan at #8 eh…wonder who’s going to win that collision contest…?

    • Who?

      I’m confident that Hanigan couldn’t pick up Stormbreaker. ;-)

  • Rick Harrison

    Why is Tom Wright on the bench again?

ACT Brumbies
@Only1Sully

Just another Rugby tragic. Shane "Sully" Sullivan has been in man love with the game since high school in the 70's. He inflicts his passion on family and anyone who will listen. He can't guarantee unbiased opinion but he can tell you the Reds are Awesome! To read non-rugby content head to http://www.onesully.com.au

More in ACT Brumbies